Friday, April 17, 2015

Ineos loses at CAFC in appeal of adverse summary judgment decision

The technology involved compositions of polyethylene with certain additives. The legal issue was one of anticipation in the context of summary judgment.

A significant issue was whether testimony proferred by Ineos of range criticality was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to foreclose summary judgment. The CAFC found the testimony insufficient. This case is not burden shifting on the presumption of validity, but rather presenting evidence to show that there are disputed facts to preclude summary judgment.

The Ineos testimony did assert criticality of range, but apparently neither the district court nor the CAFC found that the testimony established disputed facts.

0 Comments:

About Me

I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted
in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.